Do powercords make a difference in sound?

Tbg, Mrtennis will almost invariably take an audiophile reductionist/agnostic viewpoint, i.e. that one can know little to nothing about sound, setting up systems, etc. absolutely.

While this may be true philosophically, I find it obfuscates learning about putting together high end systems. I find it of little value in actually assembling better sounding rigs.

My understanding is that Mrtennis objected to my statement that I can tell the sonic characteristics of sets of cables. I'll stand by my claim that one can indeed utilize cables to achieve a certain result in systems when they know the character of the cables' sound.

So, what do you think, Tbg; what if you used a set of cables in five different systems and the results were consistent every time (but obviously not identical as each system is discreet) in regards to their sound as compared to different cables - would you accept that those cables had a particular sound quality? Or would you take the position of Mrtennis that you can't know what a component sounds like?

I'm not into philosophical ramblings, especially when they're self-evident like Mrtennis's last post. I'm into practical methods of building better audio systems. But everyone's got their own philosophy and methodology. :)

On a practical side.....how many of us have a hodgepodge of cords of different models and manufacturers or worse, running into a conditioner where any difference is homogenized and ultimately inaudible? I know that's my case.

I wholehearteldy agree with the approach of upgrading the outlets and having a dedicated line and stopping right there.

hi doug:

you have misrepresented my statements and you display an ignorance of mathematics. this is not a matter of philosophy.
the issue concerns mathematics, and specifically the concept of a diophantine equation.

it's really quite simple. i indicated the nature of the relationship between a stereo system and the components therein in functional form.

first , let's construct a paradigm.

you listen to a stereo system for the first time.

thus you do not know what any individual component sounds like.

you can listen to the stereo system as long as you wish. you can't isolate the sound of a component and describe it, because you are listening to the sound of a stereo system.
you are not listening to one component

next, you substitute, say another amplifier. the sound of a the stereo system changes.

all you can say is the insertion of the amplifier produced a change in the sound of a stereo system, and describe the sound of the stereo system.

in the end, you have created comments about two stereo systems.

if you compare the comments you can discern the affect of the amplifier change upon the stereo system, but you cannot describe the sound of either amplifier.

so, a review is essentially, a discussion of the affect of the sound of the review sample upon the sound of a stereo system. a review does not describe the sound of the review sample.

if you state that a component has a sound, and describe it, you are being illogical, violating the laws of mathematics, and lying to your readers.

your suggestions regarding a caveat to the reader are a non-sequitur.

you are welcome to read my reviews and comment as you see fit, but your reasoning is unsound.

you should learn some mathematics before you speak.

Rrpg: "There is one thing I have noticed. When something sounds good everybody knows it."

I wish I had $10 for every audio club meeting at which there were disputes on what sounded good and what didn't.

Mrtennis, "if you compare the comments you can discern the affect of the amplifier change upon the stereo system, but you cannot describe the sound of either amplifier." There is no need to do so. There was a benefit of the second amp over the first. This is all the reviewer need to be concern with.

Diophantine equations are a smoke screen.